The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[Sleeppy]

CMike,

How many men, women and children were slain according to the golden calf, which the high priest of God had made?

And of Israel, who carried out the executions? And who were spared? And who were honored?

You were the ones lying and fabricating, even alongside the likeness of God. Be truthful.

 

[Porque77]

Jesus said the Law of Moses was binding for all time. Every iota. No exception.

Well, that's what you say. But I see that Jewish law does not match the law of the Gospel, and the Law of the Gospel is the true Law of God because Jesus Christ tells us that this is the Law and the Prophets. Then the law of the Gospel is the Law that God gave to Moses. The Old Testament law is another thing. Jesus Christ says:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12)

Jesus teaches to a rich man, the precepts of the Law

"And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions" (Matthew 19: 16-22)

 

[Shermana]

CMike,

How many men, women and children were slain according to the golden calf, which the high priest of God had made?

And of Israel, who carried out the executions? And who were spared? And who were honored?

You were the ones lying and fabricating, even alongside the likeness of God. Be truthful.

The Israelites have gone bad and astray from the commandments numerous times.

What does that have anything to do with the issue of hand of his claims that Jeremiah is referring to the current version of the Torah being fabricated?

 

[Shermana]

Well, that's what you say. But I see that Jewish law does not match the law of the Gospel, and the Law of the Gospel is the true Law of God because Jesus Christ tells us that this is the Law and the Prophets. Then the law of the Gospel is the Law that God gave to Moses. The Old Testament law is another thing. Jesus Christ says:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12)

Jesus teaches to a rich man, the precepts of the Law

"And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions" (Matthew 19: 16-22)

That's not what I say, that's what Jesus says.

Matthew 5:17-20

Luke 16:17.

Do you believe those verses are all fabrications?

Now I understand the concept of repeating myself with people who aren't responding to my points, but I did respond to your misusage of 7:12 in that he's merely summarizing, not replacing, the commandments. So I don't want to have to repeat myself over and over just because you are repeating yourself and refusing to address what I said.

 

[Porque77]

Eye for an eye means that if you hurt someone by mistake you compensate that person with money.

I think you are wrong. Te scripture dont´t talk about the money. Te scriptpure tell so:

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". (Leviticus 24: 19-20)

This law was abolished by Jesus when said this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:...)

The reason for that is that the jews didn't buy what jesus was selling.

Jesus was a false prophet to the jews.

Jesus abolished many laws of the Old Testament that the Jews had. So no wonder that Jews hate Jesus Christ so much.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Israelites have gone bad and astray from the commandments numerous times.

What does that have anything to do with the issue of hand of his claims that Jeremiah is referring to the current version of the Torah being fabricated?

If it is law, or prophet, it comes from God through men. The truths of men change, because men are easily manipulated. Adam would be the first and leading example. Creation evolves and learns according to God's will.

The sons judge the fathers. We make laws, and reformations, because we are the ones living on the Earth. We prevent Elijah when we tout lineage over teaching. And so Elijah precedes the anointing of the King. And the hearts of the sons of man are turned toward their everlasting Father, who teaches all righteousness.

 

[Shermana]

If it is law, or prophet, it comes from God through men. The truths of men change, because men are easily manipulated. Adam would be the first and leading example. Creation evolves and learns according to God's will.

The sons judge the fathers. We make laws, and reformations, because we are the ones living on the Earth. We prevent Elijah when we tout lineage over teaching. And so Elijah precedes the anointing of the King. And the hearts of the sons of man are turned toward their everlasting Father, who teaches all righteousness.

So let me ask you again, what does that have to do with what I quoted?

 

[Sleeppy]

So let me ask you again, what does that have to do with what I quoted?

Everything. Jeremiah was a man, like Moses. Both of them erred according to their natures.

The Torah involves many lies and fabrications and condemnations. The first fabrication beginning with the creation and evolution of Heaven and Earth, described in Genesis. Regardless of it's intent, it misleads.

Jeremiah has also misled. As does mankind, according to nature, ignorance, and corruptibility.

 

[Shermana]

Everything. Jeremiah was a man, like Moses. Both of them erred according to their natures.

The Torah involves many lies and fabrications and condemnations. The first fabrication beginning with the creation and evolution of Heaven and Earth, described in Genesis. Regardless of it's intent, it misleads.

Jeremiah has also misled. As does mankind, according to nature, ignorance, and corruptibility.

Ah, you know that the Torah and the Genesis creation account is full of lies and fabrications. Okay, surely you should have no problem pointing them out and how you arrived at this knowledge.

 

[Shermana]

I think you are wrong. Te scripture dont´t talk about the money. Te scriptpure tell so:

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". (Leviticus 24: 19-20)

This law was abolished by Jesus when said this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:...)



Jesus abolished many laws of the Old Testament that the Jews had. So no wonder that Jews hate Jesus Christ so much.

No you simply don't understand what Jesus meant. He was saying the Jews were misapplying it far too literally and strictly. Even today, Orthodox Jews don't apply it literally and strictly. When was the last time even the most Charedi of Jews ruled for someone to be beaten or maimed in a similar way one causes to another? Jesus was saying to tone it down and not apply it so literally and strictly.

The New Testament teaches nothing New

First of all, let's get one thing clear. Jesus was not quoting from the written law of the Old Testament in these verses! Let me repeat that. Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament laws in these passages! Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Christ used this same “Ye have heard that it hath been said,” or “it hath been said.” figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time. In other words, Jesus was dealing with hearsay statements.

Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "It is written" or "The Scripture saith" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

You may ask, “But the laws such as 'an eye for an eye' are found in the Old Testament. If Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament, then what was he quoting from?” Yes, most of the above laws in verses 21 through 48 are found in God's Law. But even though Jesus may have been referring to God's Law, Jesus was not quoting from God's Law. Jesus was quoting from man's law! Man's laws always have scriptural truths in them; but when someone quotes these truths in man's laws, even though they have reference to God's Law in scripture, they are still being quoted from man's law itself.

In Jesus' case, the Pharisees and Sadducees took God's Law, from the Old Testament, and applied it to situations that God never intended. They had changed God's Laws. They placed their own commandments and traditions above the Word of God (Mark 7:7-9). Jesus was correcting the laws that the people have “heard” from their religious leaders, and explained these laws as God intended them to be.

For example, Jesus said:
Matthew 5:43-44, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
Was Jesus teaching something new?

God's law says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour” (Leviticus 19:18), but God's law does not say, “hate thine enemy.” The Pharisees were taking God's Law out of context, and added to it, and changed it to mean that we are to hate our enemies, as if the one were a legitimate inference from the other. This is what the people heard from man, but it is not what they read in scripture. However, when Jesus taught we are to love our enemy, Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament (Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, Proverbs 25:21-22). He taught nothing new!

Another example is when Jesus said:
Matthew 5:21-22, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill…But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"
Was Jesus teaching something new?

God's law says, “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), but it certainly does not teach to hate your brother. The Pharisees were teaching it was okay to hate (be angry at) your brothers. But what does the Old Testament say? Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Again, Jesus taught nothing new! He was quoting from scripture! He was correcting them with Old Testament scripture. Jesus was explaining the spiritual meaning of Old Testament laws, using the Old Testament itself! The spiritual meaning in this case would be that before one can commit murder, one must first be angry and hate the one he wants to murder.

Jesus was referring to that anger which leads a man to commit outrages against another, thereby subjecting himself to that punishment which was to be inflicted on those who break the peace. As far as being in danger of judgment, that is, to have the matter brought before a magistrate, whose business it was to judge in such cases.

Another example is when Jesus said:
Matthew 5:33-35, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King."
Did Jesus teach something new?

 

[Shermana]

Continued:

It was not the intention of Jesus to repeal or abolish this law. God's Law allowed, and in some instances required, the administration of an oath made unto the Lord (Exodus 22:11, Numbers 5:19). But the Jews, looking upon this law, construed it as giving them exemption from the binding effect of all other oaths. According to their construction, no oath was binding in which the name of God did not directly occur. They therefore coined many other oaths to suit their purposes, which would add weight to their statements or promises, which, however, would not leave them guilty of being forsworn if they spoke untruthfully.

But Jesus showed that all oaths were ultimately referable to God, and that those who made them would be forsworn if they did not keep them. To prevent this evil practice of loose swearing Jesus lays down the prohibition, "Swear not at all."

Christ does not forbid judicial oaths in this prohibition. This conclusion is also reached when we interpret the prohibition in the light of authoritative examples; for we find that God swore by himself (Genesis 22:16-17; Hebrews 6:13; 7:21); Jesus answered under oath before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63); Paul also made an oath to the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 1:23) and made solemn appeals to God (Romans 1:9, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Revelation 10:5-6).

Therefore, judicial oaths, and oaths taken in the name of God on occasions of solemn religious importance, are not included in the prohibition. But as these are the only exceptions found in Scriptures, we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden. Looking at the details of the paragraph, we find that oaths "by heaven...by the earth...by Jerusalem...and by thy head" are utterly meaningless save as they have reference to God.

Jesus says elsewhere that all who swear at all, do in fact swear by God, or the oath is good for nothing (Matthew 23:22). To swear by an altar, a gift, or a temple, is of no force, unless it be meant to appeal to God himself. The essential thing in an oath is calling God to witness our sincerity. If a real oath is taken, therefore, God is appealed to. If not, it is foolish and wicked to swear by anything else.

Another example is when Jesus said:
Matthew 5:31-32, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:"
Did Jesus teach something new?

The Pharisees are the ones who said that it was "...lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause" (Matthew 19:3), And Jesus was correcting them by saying, in Matthew 19:8, "...but from the beginning it was not so.” Some may claim that Jesus was changing the law of Moses which permitted divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). However, when one reads the law of divorce carefully, it tells us that when the woman divorces and remarries another, she will be defiled. The only thing removed was the curse of the law, but the law that said she would be defiled if she married another man did not change. It was still a sin, but God permitted that evil, temporarily, to prevent an even greater evil. It was still God's will, in Moses' time, that divorce not happen, and it was still a sin.

Deuteronomy 24:4, "the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled."
Jesus was simply teaching the same law that was from the beginning! Jesus taught nothing new!


Another example is when Jesus said:
Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you…"
Did Jesus teach something new?

Jesus was not saying that the Old Testament law on an eye for an eye has now passed away! Because a few minutes earlier he had just stated that none of the Old Testament law would pass away (Matthew 5:17-18), and Jesus would not contradict himself. So, what was Jesus teaching in this passage?

The reference to "an eye for an eye" is found in Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the judges (magistrate) must deal with a crime (Deuteronomy 19:18-21 explains how the judges were to carry out this eye for an eye judgment). Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the magistrates and misused it as a principle of personal revenge. Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the magistrates—that is, taking vengeance—was also proper for an individual. This law of retribution was designed to take vengeance out of the hands of personal revenge and commit it to the magistrate.

The Pharisees and their followers misused this law as a principle of personal revenge, so that they could give "tit for tat" to those who harmed them, which is contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29). A law that was meant to be a guide to judges rendering judicial decisions and handing down sentences was never meant to be a rule of our personal relationships. The function of magistrates is to administer the vengeance of God upon evil doers (Romans 13:4), but not so with individuals. Our duty is to love our neighbor as the Lord Jesus has instructed us.

Jesus was teaching from the Old Testament, which specifically stated that if evil is done to us, we are not to do to him as he did to us!

Proverbs 24:29, "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work."
The reason is because this would be personal revenge. Instead, the duty of rendering to man his evil work is the duty of the majistrates. Jesus taught nothing new.

Another example is when Jesus said:
Matthew 5:27-28, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Was Jesus teaching something new? No, Jesus was not teaching something new. Just as in all the other examples given in Matthew 5 above, Jesus was teaching directly from the Old Testament. The spiritual meanings of the Old Testament laws are also found in the Old Testament itself.

Please read God's seventh and tenth commandments:

7th Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14).
10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife." (Exodus 20:17).
In other words, this 10th Commandment says that whosoever “covets, desires, or lusts” after a married woman, has committed adultery with her already in ones heart!!! Why? Because one has broken the 7th Commandment already in one's heart! This is the spiritual meaning of adultery, and this is exactly what Jesus meant when he spoke in Matthew 5:27-28.

 

[Sleeppy]

Ah, you know that the Torah and the Genesis creation account is full of lies and fabrications. Okay, surely you should have no problem pointing them out and how you arrived at this knowledge.

If you can't identify them, why is that? The entire timeline and order of events are fabrications.

Do you know why Adam, if he was the very first man, could not have existed only 6000 yrs ago? Or should we ignore the bones which extend tens of thousands of years previous to him?

Should we also ignore the truth in evolution? In progress? In sequence?

Are Day One and Day Four able to be separate? And if so, why are they?

It's incomplete and inaccurate.

 

[Shermana]

If you can't identify them, why is that? The entire timeline and order of events are fabrications.

Do you know why Adam, if he was the very first man, could not have existed only 6000 yrs ago? Or should we ignore the bones which extend tens of thousands of years previous to him?

Should we also ignore the truth in evolution? In progress? In sequence?

Are Day One and Day Four able to be separate? And if so, why are they?

It's incomplete and inaccurate.

Sigh.

If you want a debate on YEC and dating methods and the "Truth of evolution" we can start a new thread.

Until then, feel free to make your bold assertions as if every argument for YEC has been disproven.

What's incomplete and inaccurate is your understanding of the "science" you endorse so much. But if you'd like I'll be happy to explain to you why the Creationist position still stands quite strong and all the holes in the Old-Earth creation position but that's best for the Science vs Religion threads.

Besides, you are completely ruling out the aspects of Old Earth Creation that apply to Genesis.

So what other parts of the Torah do you think are lies?

 

[roger1440]

I understood the question perfectly. But I say you are who does not understand that Jesus Christ gives the true Law. So I wrote this the Gospel says.

The Gospel says:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12)

Jesus Christ says that this is the Law. Then?...

I’m going to let you in a little secret, shhhhh.:sorry1:

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 7:12)

Mathew’s Jesus is quoting from a very famous Jewish teacher from the first century, Hillel.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[3]
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sleeppy]

Sigh.

If you want a debate on YEC and dating methods and the "Truth of evolution" we can start a new thread.

Until then, feel free to make your bold assertions as if every argument for YEC has been disproven.

What's incomplete and inaccurate is your understanding of the "science" you endorse so much. But if you'd like I'll be happy to explain to you why the Creationist position still stands quite strong and all the holes in the Old-Earth creation position but that's best for the Science vs Religion threads.

Besides, you are completely ruling out the aspects of Old Earth Creation that apply to Genesis.

So what other parts of the Torah do you think are lies?

Dating isn't the only problem. Sequence as well. And detail.

And not only for the Earth, but the entire universe. We have day and night without a Sun. No mention of our closest planets or orbits and gravitational influences. No mention of the vastness of our universe.

The stars are said to be given for time-markers on Earth.. Obviously human bias. No mention of purpose for the countless stars beyond past and present human perception. No mention of planets, or moons containing livable conditions.

It's an obvious human-centered perception of how the universe evolved. Everything is created to serve humanity.

Was there a global flood which initiated the current science/law behind rainbows? Had only one family been worthy of salvation? Had Abraham abandoned Ishmael and Hagar, making a widow and an orphan, only for God to command Isaac be sacrificed as well? And had God written the tablets given to Moses twice, only to be broken spiritually and lost physically? And had God Himself sanctioned conquest, genocide, division, and false attributions- such as calling God unknowing, and able to repent? Everything, both historical and social, is questionable in the Torah.

The very fact that we must rely on language, even ourselves, to follow God's commands is blasphemy toward the very meaning and character of a monotheistic God. If God is not God, except to have laws inefficient enough to be continually broken, misused, misinterpreted, misrepresented, mispoken, and misunderstood- He should repent of His creation. But that's not what God is, or does.

 

[Shermana]

To go into the details of the Creationist point of view on all these issues including the reality of the "Science" versus the vocal Atheist interpretations of such would require quite a bit of time and would be beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll let you just have the last word on that.

Now perhaps you'd like to tell us what parts of the Law itself in terms of the commandments you think are lies too.

 

[Shermana]

The very fact that we must rely on language, even ourselves, to follow God's commands is blasphemy toward the very meaning and character of a monotheistic God. If God is not God, except to have laws inefficient enough to be continually broken, misused, misinterpreted, misrepresented, mispoken, and misunderstood- He should repent of His creation. But that's not what God is, or does.

Now this makes absolutely no sense. Language is the mechanism of communication. Even if we had telepathy, we'd still be communicating in a language of ideas. I fail to see how this idea is "Blasphemy" toward the very meaning of God.

I think you're stuck on some new agey mumbo jumbo that doesn't really have a logical foothold. This is the problem with debate, people can make wild assertions on whatever they want and disproving them is a wild goose chase of disproving a negative.

 

[Sleeppy]

To go into the details of the Creationist point of view on all these issues including the reality of the "Science" versus the vocal Atheist interpretations of such would require quite a bit of time and would be beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll let you just have the last word on that.

Now perhaps you'd like to tell us what parts of the Law itself in terms of the commandments you think are lies too.

Not everything began a lie, others became ineffective. Circumcision. Certain clothing, and food restrictions, like mixed fabrics and pork. Every eye for an eye law. Every law saying to murder Cain, and forgive Aaron. Every law dividing Israel into twelve tribes, for the sake of greed and civil war. Every law designating eternal authorities only to certain families, even in relation to a global kingdom.

 

[Shermana]

Not everything began a lie, others became ineffective. Circumcision. Certain clothing, and food restrictions, like mixed fabrics and pork. Every eye for an eye law. Every law saying to murder Cain, and forgive Aaron. Every law dividing Israel into twelve tribes, for the sake of greed and civil war. Every law designating eternal authorities only to certain families, even in relation to a global kingdom.

Okay, I'll leave you with your theories. Enjoy.

 

[Sleeppy]

Now this makes absolutely no sense. Language is the mechanism of communication. Even if we had telepathy, we'd still be communicating in a language of ideas. I fail to see how this idea is "Blasphemy" toward the very meaning of God.

I think you're stuck on some new agey mumbo jumbo that doesn't really have a logical foothold. This is the problem with debate, people can make wild assertions on whatever they want and disproving them is a wild goose chase of disproving a negative.

Language is only one possibility of communication. Humans created languages as a means of verbal communication and understanding. Certain words have certain meanings and emotional effects. Animals communicate short of language, according to vocal and physical cues. Inanimate objects communicate physically/chemically.

Did God command light on the First Day, according to a vocal cue? The Hebrew language?

Why is it that the stars and Sun are able to remain obedient, according to God's commands, but we are exemptions? God maintains His will effectively in objects created to serve mankind, but not in mankind?

If there was anything illogical, you'd point to it.